Although researchers acknowledge the importance of replication in building scientific knowledge, replication studies seem to be published infrequently. The present study examines the extent to which replications are conducted in criminology. We conduct a content analysis of the five most influential journals in criminology. We also compare the replication rate in criminology with that in the social sciences and natural sciences. The results show that replication research is rarely published in these disciplines. In criminology journals in particular, replication studies constitute just over 2 percent of the articles published between 2006 and 2010. Further, those replication studies that were published in criminology journals in that period tended to conflict with the original studies. These findings call into question the utility of empirical results published in criminology journals for developing theory and policy. Strategies for promoting replication research in criminology are suggested.
BerkRACampbellAKlapRWesternB (1992) A Bayesian analysis of the Colorado Spouse Abuse Experiment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology83(1): 170–200.
2.
ClawsonCChangSK (1977) The relationship of response delays and arrest rates. Journal of Police Science and Administration5(1): 53–68.
3.
CullenFT (2011) Beyond adolescence-limited criminology: Choosing our future – the American Society of Criminology 2010 Sutherland Address. Criminology49(2): 287–330.
4.
DanzigerSLevavJAvnaim-PessoL (2011) Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. PNAS108(17): 6889–6892.
5.
DewaldWGThursbyJGAndersonRG (1986) Replication in empirical economics: The Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking Project. American Economic Review76(4): 587–603.
6.
DunfordFW (1992) The measurement of recidivism in cases of spouse assault. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology83(1): 120–136.
7.
FanelliD (2009) How many scientists fabricate and falsify research: A systematic review of meta-analysis of survey data. Plos ONE4(5): e5738.
8.
FeigenbaumSLevyDM (1993) The market for (ir)reproducible econometrics. Social Epistemology7(3): 215–232.
9.
FrankMCSaxeR (2012) Teaching replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science7(6): 600–604.
10.
FuessSM (1996) On replication in business and economics research. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics35(2): 3–13.
11.
HaganJ (1973) Labeling and deviance: A case study in the ‘sociology of the interesting.’Social Problems20(4): 447–458.
12.
HirschelJDHutchisonIWDeanCWKelleyJJPesackisCE (1992) Charlotte Spouse Assault Replication Project: Final Report. Charlotte, NC: University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
13.
HortonPBMcConneyAAWoodsALBarryKKroutHLDoyleBK (1993) A content analysis of research published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching from 1985 through 1989. Journal of Research in Science Teaching30(8): 857–869.
14.
HubbardRArmstrongJS (1994) Replications and extensions in marketing – Rarely published but quite contrary. International Journal of Research in Marketing11(3): 233–248.
15.
HubbardRBrodieRJArmstrongJS (1992) Knowledge development in marketing: The role of replication research. New Zealand Journal of Business14(1): 1–12.
16.
HubbardRVetterDE (1996) An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing. Journal of Business Research35(2): 153–164.
17.
IoannidisJPA (2005) Why most published research results are false. Plos Medicine2(8): e124.
18.
IsaacsHH (1967) A study of Communications, Crimes and Arrests in a Metropolitan Police Department. Task Force Report: Science and Technology, a Report to the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Washington, DC: USGPO.
19.
KellyCD (2006) Replicating empirical research in behavioral ecology: How and why it should be done but rarely ever is. Quarterly Review of Biology81(3): 221–236.
20.
KerrSTolliverJPetreeD (1977) Manuscript characteristics which influence acceptance for management and social science journals. The Academy of Management Journal20(1): 132–141.
MaddenCSEasleyRWDunnMG (1995) How journal editors view replication research. Journal of Advertising24: 77–87.
23.
MakelMCPluckerJAHegartyB (2012) Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur?Perspectives on Psychological Science7(6): 537–542.
24.
MayerT (1980) Economics as a hard science: Realistic goal or wishful thinking?Economic Inquiry18(2): 165–178.
PopperKR (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
31.
RadderH (1996) In and about the World. Philosophical Studies of Science and Technology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
32.
ReidLNSoleyLCWimmerRD (1981) Replication in advertising research: 1977, 1978, 1979. Journal of Advertising10(1): 3–13.
33.
RosenthalR (1979) The ‘file drawer problem’ and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin86(3): 638–641.
34.
RosenthalR (1991) Replication in behavioral research. In: NeuliepJW (ed.) Replication Research in the Social Sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1–39.
35.
RowneyJAZenisekTJ (1980) Manuscript characteristics influencing reviewers’ decisions. Canadian Psychology21(1): 17–21.
36.
SchmidtS (2009) Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology13(2): 90–100.
37.
SchweizerK (1989) Eine analyse der konzepte, bedingungen und zielsetzungen von replikationen [An analysis of concepts, conditions and aims of replications]. Archiv für Psychologie141(2): 85–97.
38.
ShermanLWBerkRA (1984) The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review49(2): 261–272.
39.
ShermanLWSchmidtJDRoganDPGartinPRCohnEGCollinsDJBacichAR (1991) From initial deterrence to long-term escalation: Short-custody arrest for poverty ghetto domestic violence. Criminology29(4): 821–850.
40.
SpelmanWBrownDK (1981) Calling the Police: A Replication of the Citizen Reporting Component of the Kansas City Response Time Analysis. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
41.
SterlingTD (1959) Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance – or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association54(285): 30–34.
